On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-08 13:29:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I like this approach, though I think clearly it needs more performance testing.
>
> Yea, obviously. I did run this on a slightly bigger machine yesterday
> and it gave consistent ~8% performance improvements.
Wow, nice.
>> The method of determining the tranche IDs is totally awful, though. I
>> assume that's just a dirty hack for the POC and not something you'd
>> seriously consider doing.
>
> If you're referring to assigning fixed ids in the guts of lwlocks.c -
> yea, that was really more of a quick hack. I think we should put a enum
> into lwlock.h with fixed tranch ids with the final member being
> LWTRANCHE_FIRST_DYNAMIC or so.
We could do that, but I'm not sure just calling LWLockNewTrancheId()
for all of the tranches would be so bad either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company